Powershot Pro 1: why CCD?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by John Faughnan, Feb 10, 2004.

  1. http://www.powershot.com/powershot2/pro1/specs.html

    Nice looking camera, but why go CCD? Canon's CMOS sensor is in their
    Pro and rebel cameras. Why not put it in this one? I really like the
    light sensitivity of the CMOS.

    john


    meta: jfaughnan, jgfaughnan, canon, digital sensor, DIGIC, CMOS, CCD
    John Faughnan, Feb 10, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. "John Faughnan" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > http://www.powershot.com/powershot2/pro1/specs.html
    >
    > Nice looking camera, but why go CCD? Canon's CMOS sensor is in their
    > Pro and rebel cameras. Why not put it in this one?


    Because the CMOS sensors are 15x22 mm (or larger) and the Pro1 sensor is
    6x8mm (roughly). The CMOS sensors won't fit. A 10x zoom for the larger
    sensors would be 2.5 times larger in every dimension and 15 times heavier.
    If you want a light weight compact camera, you don't get a big sensor.

    > I really like the light sensitivity of the CMOS.


    So does everyone else: when the smoke has cleared, what it is very likely we
    will see is that the 300D has better image quality at ISO 400 than the 8MP
    consumer cameras do at ISO 50.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
    David J. Littleboy, Feb 10, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. John Faughnan

    Mark M Guest

    "John Faughnan" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > http://www.powershot.com/powershot2/pro1/specs.html
    >
    > Nice looking camera, but why go CCD? Canon's CMOS sensor is in their
    > Pro and rebel cameras. Why not put it in this one? I really like the
    > light sensitivity of the CMOS.


    The CMOS sensor would require a MUCH larger system...and mainly a larger
    lens, due to the significantly larger sensor compared to the CCD theyv'e
    used here.
    Mark M, Feb 10, 2004
    #3
  4. John Faughnan

    cwvalle Guest

    Looks a lot like a nikon 8700 to me...
    It's a hair faster at f2.4 but not as long either
    I think it is the correct direction however
    I hope we see better compacts with smaller sensors and get away from these
    35mm bodied dinosaurs

    "David J. Littleboy" <> wrote in message
    news:c09lqm$7nj$...
    >
    > "John Faughnan" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > http://www.powershot.com/powershot2/pro1/specs.html
    > >
    > > Nice looking camera, but why go CCD? Canon's CMOS sensor is in their
    > > Pro and rebel cameras. Why not put it in this one?

    >
    > Because the CMOS sensors are 15x22 mm (or larger) and the Pro1 sensor is
    > 6x8mm (roughly). The CMOS sensors won't fit. A 10x zoom for the larger
    > sensors would be 2.5 times larger in every dimension and 15 times heavier.
    > If you want a light weight compact camera, you don't get a big sensor.
    >
    > > I really like the light sensitivity of the CMOS.

    >
    > So does everyone else: when the smoke has cleared, what it is very likely

    we
    > will see is that the 300D has better image quality at ISO 400 than the 8MP
    > consumer cameras do at ISO 50.
    >
    > David J. Littleboy
    > Tokyo, Japan
    >
    >
    cwvalle, Feb 10, 2004
    #4
  5. According to David J. Littleboy <>:
    > So does everyone else: when the smoke has cleared, what it is very
    > likely we will see is that the 300D has better image quality at ISO
    > 400 than the 8MP consumer cameras do at ISO 50.


    I think the sample images say that already. You can see noticably more noise
    around edges that doesn't appear in 300D images (look at the hair in the first
    image and the vertical supports on the bridge photo). These are the kind of
    little artifacts that always bothered me about the Kodaks that my family has,
    and I never saw that kind of distortion with my G1 or now my 300D.

    --
    eth'nT
    http://www.hydrous.net
    aim: courtarro
    Ethan Trewhitt, Feb 10, 2004
    #5
  6. John Faughnan

    Rick Guest

    "David J. Littleboy" <> wrote in message news:c09lqm$7nj$...
    >
    > "John Faughnan" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > http://www.powershot.com/powershot2/pro1/specs.html
    > >
    > > Nice looking camera, but why go CCD? Canon's CMOS sensor is in their
    > > Pro and rebel cameras. Why not put it in this one?

    >
    > Because the CMOS sensors are 15x22 mm (or larger) and the Pro1 sensor is
    > 6x8mm (roughly). The CMOS sensors won't fit. A 10x zoom for the larger
    > sensors would be 2.5 times larger in every dimension and 15 times heavier.
    > If you want a light weight compact camera, you don't get a big sensor.
    >
    > > I really like the light sensitivity of the CMOS.

    >
    > So does everyone else: when the smoke has cleared, what it is very likely we
    > will see is that the 300D has better image quality at ISO 400 than the 8MP
    > consumer cameras do at ISO 50.


    That's evident from the sample images posted so far. Some fairly
    bad noise and chromatic aberration, not as bad as the F828 but
    certainly much worse than the G5. ISO 50 looks awful, e.g.
    http://www.canon.co.jp/Imaging/pspro1/spl/pspro1_sample6-e.html

    Rick
    Rick, Feb 10, 2004
    #6
  7. John Faughnan

    Mark B. Guest

    "John Faughnan" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > http://www.powershot.com/powershot2/pro1/specs.html
    >
    > Nice looking camera, but why go CCD? Canon's CMOS sensor is in their
    > Pro and rebel cameras. Why not put it in this one? I really like the
    > light sensitivity of the CMOS.
    >
    > john
    >
    >
    > meta: jfaughnan, jgfaughnan, canon, digital sensor, DIGIC, CMOS, CCD



    You don't want the same size CMOS sensor in the Pro1 do you? This cam is
    already priced at $999 MSRP in the U.S. With the larger sensor and a larger
    equivalent L lens to accomodate the sensor it could very well be more than
    the 10D alone.

    Mark
    Mark B., Feb 10, 2004
    #7
  8. "David J. Littleboy" <> wrote in message news:<c09lqm$7nj$>...
    > "John Faughnan" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > http://www.powershot.com/powershot2/pro1/specs.html
    > >
    > > Nice looking camera, but why go CCD? Canon's CMOS sensor is in their
    > > Pro and rebel cameras. Why not put it in this one?

    >
    > Because the CMOS sensors are 15x22 mm (or larger) and the Pro1 sensor is
    > 6x8mm (roughly). The CMOS sensors won't fit. A 10x zoom for the larger
    > sensors would be 2.5 times larger in every dimension and 15 times heavier.
    > If you want a light weight compact camera, you don't get a big sensor.


    Beautiful post -- concise and precise :). That makes perfect sense.
    Given the nature of CMOS the chips will be difficult to shrink to CCD
    size, though I'm sure they'll get somewhat smaller.

    john
    John Faughnan, Feb 10, 2004
    #8
  9. John Faughnan

    Bob Guest

    "John Faughnan" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > "David J. Littleboy" <> wrote in message

    news:<c09lqm$7nj$>...
    > > "John Faughnan" <> wrote in message
    > > news:...
    > > > http://www.powershot.com/powershot2/pro1/specs.html
    > > >
    > > > Nice looking camera, but why go CCD? Canon's CMOS sensor is in their
    > > > Pro and rebel cameras. Why not put it in this one?

    > >
    > > Because the CMOS sensors are 15x22 mm (or larger) and the Pro1 sensor is
    > > 6x8mm (roughly). The CMOS sensors won't fit. A 10x zoom for the larger
    > > sensors would be 2.5 times larger in every dimension and 15 times

    heavier.
    > > If you want a light weight compact camera, you don't get a big sensor.

    >


    A standard 35mm zoom lens is too big for the DSLR sensors ie an increase of
    focal length by 1.6. Thus they could make a smaller lens. Given that 35mm
    zoom lens of a similar focal range are not 2.5 times larger and 15 times
    heavier than say the lens on the Nikon 5700 how come the Canon one would
    have to be. Excuss my ignorance, maybe I'm missing something ?


    > Beautiful post -- concise and precise :). That makes perfect sense.
    > Given the nature of CMOS the chips will be difficult to shrink to CCD
    > size, though I'm sure they'll get somewhat smaller.
    >
    > john
    Bob, Feb 10, 2004
    #9
  10. "Bob" <> wrote:
    >
    > A standard 35mm zoom lens is too big for the DSLR sensors ie an increase

    of
    > focal length by 1.6. Thus they could make a smaller lens.


    Yes. You want an 18-135 f/2.4 to f/3.5 lens. That would be an enourmous
    lens.

    > Given that 35mm
    > zoom lens of a similar focal range are not 2.5 times larger and 15 times
    > heavier than say the lens on the Nikon 5700 how come the Canon one would
    > have to be. Excuss my ignorance, maybe I'm missing something ?


    Yes. You are missing that the math is right: a linear increase in size
    results in a cubic increase in weight. You want an 18-135 f/2.4 to f/3.5
    lens. There's no such thing for a 35mm camera (all the cheap, light, long
    zooms are f/5.6 at the long end), but if there were, it would be a seriously
    large lens. It would be a _much_heavier lens than the Canon 17-40 f/4.0
    lens, which is a 500 gram lens. Your hypothetical lens has a three times
    larger range and is significantly faster at every focal length. That's a
    flipping enourmous lens.

    (The Canon 28-135 lens is 540 grams, nowhere near wide enough, and much too
    slow. Scaling it up to the same speed as the Pro1 lens would make it 2.8
    times heavier. And you still don't have the wide end.)

    The tiny sensor makes it much easier to design fast long zooms. If you want
    a light weight long-throw zoom on a 1.6x sensor, you have to put up with
    f/5.6 at the long end.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
    David J. Littleboy, Feb 10, 2004
    #10
  11. "David J. Littleboy" <> writes:

    > "John Faughnan" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> http://www.powershot.com/powershot2/pro1/specs.html


    >> Nice looking camera, but why go CCD? Canon's CMOS sensor is in
    >> their Pro and rebel cameras. Why not put it in this one?


    > Because the CMOS sensors are 15x22 mm (or larger) and the Pro1
    > sensor is 6x8mm (roughly). The CMOS sensors won't fit. A 10x zoom
    > for the larger sensors would be 2.5 times larger in every dimension
    > and 15 times heavier. If you want a light weight compact camera,
    > you don't get a big sensor.


    They could easily fab a small CMOS chip, but at that small size, you
    want ever bit of SN you can get! So you swallow the lower (possibly)
    yeild of CCDs and get lower pattern noise.

    --
    Paul Repacholi 1 Crescent Rd.,
    +61 (08) 9257-1001 Kalamunda.
    West Australia 6076
    comp.os.vms,- The Older, Grumpier Slashdot
    Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.
    EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be.
    Paul Repacholi, Feb 10, 2004
    #11
  12. Paul Repacholi <> wrote in
    news::

    > They could easily fab a small CMOS chip, but at that small size, you
    > want ever bit of SN you can get! So you swallow the lower (possibly)
    > yeild of CCDs and get lower pattern noise.
    >


    I am not sure about that. The CMOS chips need more
    transistors per detector. And if the detectors are
    small, the transistor area may become too large.


    /Roland
    Roland Karlsson, Feb 10, 2004
    #12
  13. John Faughnan

    leo Guest

    "Paul Repacholi" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > "David J. Littleboy" <> writes:
    >
    > > "John Faughnan" <> wrote in message
    > > news:...
    > >> http://www.powershot.com/powershot2/pro1/specs.html

    >
    > >> Nice looking camera, but why go CCD? Canon's CMOS sensor is in
    > >> their Pro and rebel cameras. Why not put it in this one?

    >
    > > Because the CMOS sensors are 15x22 mm (or larger) and the Pro1
    > > sensor is 6x8mm (roughly). The CMOS sensors won't fit. A 10x zoom
    > > for the larger sensors would be 2.5 times larger in every dimension
    > > and 15 times heavier. If you want a light weight compact camera,
    > > you don't get a big sensor.

    >
    > They could easily fab a small CMOS chip, but at that small size, you
    > want ever bit of SN you can get! So you swallow the lower (possibly)
    > yeild of CCDs and get lower pattern noise.
    >
    > --
    > Paul Repacholi 1 Crescent Rd.,
    > +61 (08) 9257-1001 Kalamunda.
    > West Australia 6076
    > comp.os.vms,- The Older, Grumpier Slashdot
    > Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.
    > EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be.


    CMOS is not better than CCD, but is cheaper to produce in larger dimensions.
    In fact, it's not even feasible for small sizes when comparing to CCD. You
    should check out the difference between CMOS and CCD. However, at this size
    of APS sensor, there's no discernable quality difference between them. The
    reason why 300D has better picture quality is mere basic physics - with
    larger sensor, more light, and vivid color it can capture. As for why Canon
    chose the small Sony CCD sensor instead of the larger CMOS for the compact
    camera, it's due to the cost of lens as other people had explained - just
    check the cost of the 35mm (fast) zoom lens.
    leo, Feb 11, 2004
    #13
  14. leo wrote:

    > SNIP.....


    > As for why Canon
    > chose the small Sony CCD sensor instead of the larger CMOS for the compact
    > camera, it's due to the cost of lens as other people had explained - just
    > check the cost of the 35mm (fast) zoom lens.


    Leo,

    the small sensor was most likely not only chosen due to cost but for
    consideration of the weight and size of the resulting camera as has been pointed
    out before.

    I would rather praise Canon for giving the casual photographer a lightweight
    and, though not shirt-pocketable, nevertheless reasonably small sized high
    quality camera that is as you rightly point out comparitively cheap as well.

    Guenter
    Guenter Fieblinger, Feb 11, 2004
    #14
  15. "David J. Littleboy" <> wrote in message news:<c09lqm$7nj$>...

    > > I really like the light sensitivity of the CMOS.

    > So does everyone else: when the smoke has cleared, what it is very likely we
    > will see is that the 300D has better image quality at ISO 400 than the 8MP
    > consumer cameras do at ISO 50.


    David,

    I was thinking about this a bit more, and I wonder if the CMOS light
    sensitivity doesn't offset some of the size/weight disadvantages of
    the larger sensor.

    A larger sensor, like the Canon 6 megapixel CMOS, gives better images
    (nice discussion at <http://www.majid.info/mylos/weblog/2004/02/10-1.html>,
    but it means heavier lenses for the same F stop. But doesn't the light
    sensitivity of the CMOS offset that disadvantage?

    I suspect Canon's 6 megapixel CMOS gives images at ISO 400 comparable
    to the 8 megapixel Canon CCD at ISO 100. So a fourfold greater light
    sensitivity. Means one can get good pictures with an F5.6 lens instead
    of a 2.8 (for example). So even though the CMOS requires a heavier
    lens for the same F stop (compared to the scrunched down CCD), when
    one looks at overall light sensitivity the gap may be far smaller.
    Maybe the CMOS ends up with a slightly lighterweight lens for equal
    lens/sensor light sensitivity?

    john

    I'm expecting to replace my quite lovely G2 in the spring of 2005 with
    a 6 to 8 megapixel Canon CMOS camera ...

    meta; jfaughnan, jgfaughnan, CMOS, CCD, sensor, digital camera, Canon
    John Faughnan, Feb 12, 2004
    #15
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Enrique O

    Powershot A60, damaged CCD?

    Enrique O, Aug 11, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    475
    John O.
    Aug 18, 2003
  2. per

    Why this system of units for CCD's?

    per, Feb 5, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    375
    Dave Martindale
    Feb 6, 2004
  3. Eugene O'Brien

    PowerShot Pro 1 still uses flexi-zone AF system, why?

    Eugene O'Brien, May 27, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    464
    Eugene O'Brien
    May 27, 2004
  4. Miguel Gonzalez

    Tech Ques: About 1-ccd, 3-ccd, sensor filters, etc

    Miguel Gonzalez, Jun 3, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    2,245
    Dave Haynie
    Jun 6, 2004
  5. Paul Michaels
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    540
    Paul Michaels
    Dec 1, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page